AGP speed 2X,4x,8X: What it really means!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

The number only refers to the transfer rate of the AGP bus, which is an
extension of the PCI bus. Yes, faster is better but it primarily aides
in reducing load time of the texture data to the video cards local
memory therefore frames per sec increase is negligible at best. 3D
Benchmark programs may show improved scores but that is due to the
reduced latency of the data getting to the card.
The reason the AGP bus was invented was increase performance with older
cards when Video RAM prices were high and they had 4MB~16MB. The idea
was to use some of the System RAM to store the data that the video card
couldn't hold then transfer that data to it directly with a minimum of
CPU usage. The aperture size setting was to define how much of the
system RAM could be used for this purpose. Modern cards with all their
RAM and processing power no longer benefit much if at all save the
transfer speed to reduce load times hence the switch to PCI-express.
52 answers Last reply
More about speed means
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Chris Madsen wrote:

    > The number only refers to the transfer rate of the AGP bus, which is an
    > extension of the PCI bus. Yes, faster is better but it primarily aides
    > in reducing load time of the texture data to the video cards local
    > memory therefore frames per sec increase is negligible at best. 3D
    > Benchmark programs may show improved scores but that is due to the
    > reduced latency of the data getting to the card.
    > The reason the AGP bus was invented was increase performance with older
    > cards when Video RAM prices were high and they had 4MB~16MB. The idea
    > was to use some of the System RAM to store the data that the video card
    > couldn't hold then transfer that data to it directly with a minimum of
    > CPU usage. The aperture size setting was to define how much of the
    > system RAM could be used for this purpose. Modern cards with all their
    > RAM and processing power no longer benefit much if at all save the
    > transfer speed to reduce load times hence the switch to PCI-express.

    PCI Express is considerably faster than AGP. The switch is mostly about
    marketing.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "Chris Madsen" <take_no_shit@isp.com> wrote in message
    news:cidcpc$akk$1@news.chatlink.com...
    > The number only refers to the transfer rate of the AGP bus, which is an
    > extension of the PCI bus.

    You neglect to say that AGP is 64bits wide and runs at 133MHz (at 1X),
    compared to 32bits and 33MHz for PCI. So even AGP 1X is 8 times faster than
    PCI. People might be confused into thinking that AGP 8X is only 8 times
    faster than PCI. This is not true: it is 64 times faster.

    >Yes, faster is better but it primarily aides
    > in reducing load time of the texture data to the video cards local
    > memory therefore frames per sec increase is negligible at best.

    [snip]

    > Modern cards with all their
    > RAM and processing power no longer benefit much if at all save the
    > transfer speed to reduce load times hence the switch to PCI-express.

    I don't agree here. The performance of PCI-express is not dramatically
    better than AGP 8X. And since the performance increase you see when going
    from AGP 4x to AGP 8x is very very small, expect a similarly pathetic
    performance boost moving to PCI-express. Its principle advantages are for
    Raid disk controllers and the like, because the old PCI standard has become
    a real bottleneck; AGP has not.

    With respect to graphics controllers, the only real advantages PCI-Express
    offers are that (A) it is bi-directional. This is beneficial in some CAD
    type modelling environments. and (B) the PCI-Express connector standard can
    carry more current than the PCI connector. Bottom line is PCI-express is a
    complete waste of time for gaming speed improvements. Anyone looking to
    "upgrade" their graphics card specifically to take advantage of PCI-Express
    is going to be very disappointed.

    Chip
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >You neglect to say that AGP is 64bits wide and runs at 133MHz (at 1X),
    >compared to 32bits and 33MHz for PCI. So even AGP 1X is 8 times

    AGP runs at 66Mhz at 1X not 133Mhz. 133Mhz is 2X
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Chip wrote:
    >
    > The performance of PCI-express is not dramatically
    > better than AGP 8X. And since the performance increase you see when going
    > from AGP 4x to AGP 8x is very very small, expect a similarly pathetic
    > performance boost moving to PCI-express. Its principle advantages are for
    > Raid disk controllers and the like, because the old PCI standard has become
    > a real bottleneck; AGP has not.
    > {snip}
    > With respect to graphics controllers, the only real advantages PCI-Express
    > offers are that (A) it is bi-directional. This is beneficial in some CAD
    > type modelling environments. and (B) the PCI-Express connector standard can
    > carry more current than the PCI connector. Bottom line is PCI-express is a
    > complete waste of time for gaming speed improvements. Anyone looking to
    > "upgrade" their graphics card specifically to take advantage of PCI-Express
    > is going to be very disappointed.

    I'm not sure about the CAD application benefits but the old PCI bus is
    still fast enough for RAID as its capacity is 133MB/s and the best RAID
    speed will only burst at ~85MB/s in real world. Another big difference
    is that PCI-express is a "serial" connection not "parallel" like AGP or
    standard PCI and serial devices can invariably be clocked much higher
    for better throughput. Power shouldn't be much of an issue as most
    hungry cards have connectors on them to get what they need directly from
    the main supply anyway.

    Chris
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "PRIVATE1964" <private1964@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20040917190132.19486.00000779@mb-m22.aol.com...
    > >You neglect to say that AGP is 64bits wide and runs at 133MHz (at 1X),
    > >compared to 32bits and 33MHz for PCI. So even AGP 1X is 8 times
    >
    > AGP runs at 66Mhz at 1X not 133Mhz. 133Mhz is 2X

    Of course it does. What on earth was I thinking of. Doh!

    Chip
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    > With respect to graphics controllers, the only real advantages
    > PCI-Express offers are that (A) it is bi-directional. This is
    > beneficial in some CAD type modelling environments. and (B) the

    The other advantage to PCI express is having multiple slots. It always
    irked me that if I upgraded my AGP card, I couldn't run both at the same
    time. Now if your current card is slow with new games, but has great VIVO
    features, you won't need to look for another card that also does VIVO when
    shopping for a new card.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >Of course it does. What on earth was I thinking of. Doh!
    >

    It happens to the best of us, but I have to admit very rarely with myself do I
    slip up. ; )
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >"serial" connection not "parallel"

    I really don't understand that concept. How can data be faster moving down a
    single path? Is it because the path can be run at a much higher clock speed?
    What happens with parrallel does the data get corrupted easier?
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    PRIVATE1964 wrote:
    >>"serial" connection not "parallel"
    >
    >
    > I really don't understand that concept. How can data be faster moving down a
    > single path? Is it because the path can be run at a much higher clock speed?
    > What happens with parrallel does the data get corrupted easier?

    The speed difference between serial and parallel is; a byte needs to be
    converted twice as often when its transmitted in parallel than when its
    done serially. The main reason most things are done in parallel is
    because its more cost effective and is easier to implement. Serial data
    paths can't be too long because of resistance of the conductor which
    causes data loss, thats why they use multiple shorter paths instead. The
    main problem comes when there is too many of those shorter paths close
    together and have "cross-talk" which causes data corruption. If any data
    is lost or corrupt it needs to be re-sent and reduces throughput. This
    happens more often with a parallel connection than serial, thats why
    they needed the 80 conductor cables for IDE to support higher
    throughput. Every other conductor is tied to ground to reduce cross-talk
    between adjacent data lines. Hope this clears things up a bit.

    Chris
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >
    >The speed difference between serial and parallel is; a byte needs to be
    >converted twice as often when its transmitted in parallel than when its
    >done serially. The main reason most things are done in parallel is
    >because its more cost effective and is easier to implement. Serial data
    >paths can't be too long because of resistance of the conductor which
    >causes data loss, thats why they use multiple shorter paths instead. The
    >main problem comes when there is too many of those shorter paths close
    >together and have "cross-talk" which causes data corruption. If any data
    >is lost or corrupt it needs to be re-sent and reduces throughput. This
    >happens more often with a parallel connection than serial, thats why
    >they needed the 80 conductor cables for IDE to support higher
    >throughput. Every other conductor is tied to ground to reduce cross-talk
    >between adjacent data lines. Hope this clears things up a bit.
    >
    >Chris

    It does thank you.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "PRIVATE1964" <private1964@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20040918150559.01015.00000777@mb-m15.aol.com...
    > >
    > >The speed difference between serial and parallel is; a byte needs to be
    > >converted twice as often when its transmitted in parallel than when its
    > >done serially. The main reason most things are done in parallel is
    > >because its more cost effective and is easier to implement. Serial data
    > >paths can't be too long because of resistance of the conductor which
    > >causes data loss, thats why they use multiple shorter paths instead. The
    > >main problem comes when there is too many of those shorter paths close
    > >together and have "cross-talk" which causes data corruption. If any data
    > >is lost or corrupt it needs to be re-sent and reduces throughput. This
    > >happens more often with a parallel connection than serial, thats why
    > >they needed the 80 conductor cables for IDE to support higher
    > >throughput. Every other conductor is tied to ground to reduce cross-talk
    > >between adjacent data lines. Hope this clears things up a bit.
    > >
    > >Chris
    >
    > It does thank you.

    I think it's parallel communication that can't be used for long distances
    rather than serial. With multiple lines of data, the signals start to skew
    with long distances (where the data bits arrive at different times instead
    the same time like they're supposed to). And if you try to clock it faster,
    the skew becomes a big problem. With serial communication, the data bits
    will arrive in the same order that you send them no matter how fast it's
    going. I guess that's one reason why SATA came about.

    Vu.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "Chris Madsen" <take_no_shit@isp.com> wrote in message
    news:cih6qv$bkm$1@news.chatlink.com...
    > Chip wrote:
    > >
    > > The performance of PCI-express is not dramatically
    > > better than AGP 8X. And since the performance increase you see when
    going
    > > from AGP 4x to AGP 8x is very very small, expect a similarly pathetic
    > > performance boost moving to PCI-express. Its principle advantages are
    for
    > > Raid disk controllers and the like, because the old PCI standard has
    become
    > > a real bottleneck; AGP has not.
    > > {snip}
    > > With respect to graphics controllers, the only real advantages
    PCI-Express
    > > offers are that (A) it is bi-directional. This is beneficial in some
    CAD
    > > type modelling environments. and (B) the PCI-Express connector standard
    can
    > > carry more current than the PCI connector. Bottom line is PCI-express
    is a
    > > complete waste of time for gaming speed improvements. Anyone looking to
    > > "upgrade" their graphics card specifically to take advantage of
    PCI-Express
    > > is going to be very disappointed.
    >
    > I'm not sure about the CAD application benefits but the old PCI bus is
    > still fast enough for RAID as its capacity is 133MB/s and the best RAID
    > speed will only burst at ~85MB/s in real world.

    That's just not true I am afraid. I agree that often it is the case, but
    certainly its not always the case. 2 x 74GB Raptors will transfer 140MB/s
    in real world tests. (And BTW the maximum you seem to be able to get
    through PCI is only around 117MB/s: although the spec allows 133, that's not
    really available in practice.) Also, you completely ignore multiple disk
    Raid systems. Since - broadly speaking - 4 x 100GB is not much different in
    price from 1 x 400GB, Raid 5 becomes a real possibility for even home PC's.
    Why not buy 4 smaller disks instead of 1 large one? Its much faster than a
    single disk and offers resiliance too. A Raid 5 setup like this just can't
    work properly on PCI.

    [snip]

    > Power shouldn't be much of an issue as most
    > hungry cards have connectors on them to get what they need directly from
    > the main supply anyway.

    I agree its not much of an issue. But its a fudge, and its only been
    brought about by the very limited power supply capability of the PCI slot.
    The new PCI-Express standard aims to improve that. Certainly there will
    always be some cards that will still need their own dedicated power supply,
    but there will be many "mid-range" cards that won't need it on PCI-Express.
    And this will help to keep the costs down and simplify wiring etc. I know
    its not a big deal, but it is a marginal improvement.

    Chip
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    PRIVATE1964 wrote:

    >>
    >>The speed difference between serial and parallel is; a byte needs to be
    >>converted twice as often when its transmitted in parallel than when its
    >>done serially. The main reason most things are done in parallel is
    >>because its more cost effective and is easier to implement. Serial data
    >>paths can't be too long because of resistance of the conductor which
    >>causes data loss, thats why they use multiple shorter paths instead. The
    >>main problem comes when there is too many of those shorter paths close
    >>together and have "cross-talk" which causes data corruption. If any data
    >>is lost or corrupt it needs to be re-sent and reduces throughput. This
    >>happens more often with a parallel connection than serial, thats why
    >>they needed the 80 conductor cables for IDE to support higher
    >>throughput. Every other conductor is tied to ground to reduce cross-talk
    >>between adjacent data lines. Hope this clears things up a bit.
    >>
    >>Chris
    >
    > It does thank you.

    Except that it makes no sense.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Chris Madsen wrote:

    > PRIVATE1964 wrote:
    >>>"serial" connection not "parallel"
    >>
    >>
    >> I really don't understand that concept. How can data be faster moving
    >> down a single path? Is it because the path can be run at a much higher
    >> clock speed?

    Got it in one.

    >> What happens with parrallel does the data get corrupted
    >> easier?

    It can if the circuit is badly designed.

    The real purpose of PCI Express though is to make money for Intel. There
    are alternatives that give the same performance and allow the use of
    existing PCI boards in the same slots that take the higher performance
    boards. But that would mean that people didn't have to throw away there
    entire investment in older hardware to use the new technology.

    > The speed difference between serial and parallel is; a byte needs to be
    > converted twice as often when its transmitted in parallel than when its
    > done serially.

    "Converted"? From what to what? And why would serial take fewer
    "conversions" than parallel?

    > The main reason most things are done in parallel is
    > because its more cost effective and is easier to implement.

    "Most things"? Such as?

    > Serial data
    > paths can't be too long because of resistance of the conductor which
    > causes data loss, thats why they use multiple shorter paths instead.

    So how does using parallel data paths gain you anything over serial if the
    parallel paths are shorter? And it's possible to transfer about the same
    amount of over 100 meters of CAT5 cable using gigabit Ethernet as over the
    few inches of parallel circuit trace that makes up the PCI bus, so what's
    wrong with your picture?

    > The
    > main problem comes when there is too many of those shorter paths close
    > together and have "cross-talk" which causes data corruption. If any data
    > is lost or corrupt it needs to be re-sent and reduces throughput.

    I see, so what mechanism on the PCI bus resends corrupted data?

    > This
    > happens more often with a parallel connection than serial,

    All else being equal it does. It's debatable whether running a serial
    connection 16 times faster gives any real improvement in reliability
    though.

    > thats why
    > they needed the 80 conductor cables for IDE to support higher
    > throughput. Every other conductor is tied to ground to reduce cross-talk
    > between adjacent data lines.

    The first part that you've gotten unambiguously right.

    > Hope this clears things up a bit.
    >
    > Chris

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >Except that it makes no sense.

    It makes sense.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    PRIVATE1964 wrote:

    >>Except that it makes no sense.
    >
    > It makes sense.

    Only if you don't try to apply logic to it.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "PRIVATE1964" <private1964@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20040921220140.29600.00001117@mb-m29.aol.com...
    > >Except that it makes no sense.
    >
    > It makes sense.

    Sorry Private, I am with J Clark on this one. I think you have some useful
    concepts, but some of it is not quite right. For example this "byte needs
    to be converted twice..." stuff. That's complete nonsense. The data is
    parallel in the first pace. The CPU reads and writes words, not bits, or
    even bytes. Its very easy for a parallel controller to read data in
    parallel and output it in parallel. Ironically, to do it serially takes
    more work.

    Chip.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >> It makes sense.

    I meant it makes sense in a general way.

    Like the extra 40 conductors in an EIDE cable which help keep crosstalk down.
    That's accurate. Length of cable also. EIDE is maxed at 18" I believe but the
    serial cable could be longer and run faster because of less chance of cross
    talk. It's a lot easier to shield a single cable then to shield a large number
    of cables like with EIDE.

    That's all I know and I'm sticking by it. : )
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Like the extra 40 conductors in an EIDE cable which help keep crosstalk down.
    That's accurate. Length of cable also. EIDE is maxed at 18" I believe but the
    serial cable could be longer and run faster because of less chance of cross
    talk. It's a lot easier to shield a single cable then to shield a large number
    of cables like with EIDE.

    That's all I know and I'm sticking by it. : )

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------------------
    I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I needed it
    because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Courseyauto wrote:

    > Like the extra 40 conductors in an EIDE cable which help keep crosstalk
    > down. That's accurate. Length of cable also. EIDE is maxed at 18" I
    > believe but the serial cable could be longer and run faster because of
    > less chance of cross talk. It's a lot easier to shield a single cable then
    > to shield a large number of cables like with EIDE.

    If serial cable is necessary to get 1 meter out of 150 MB/sec ATA, then how
    do they manage to run U320 SCSI over 25 meters of parallel cable?

    Sorry, but that argument doesn't wash.

    Further, SATA cables are not shielded.

    PATA goes 18" because that's what the spec said and the chip designers
    worked to the spec. SATA goes one meter because that's what the spec said
    and the chip designers worked to the spec. U320 SCSI goes 25 meters
    because that's what the spec said and the chip designers designed to the
    spec. If a new PATA spec came out that required 200 MB/sec over 30 meters
    on 40-wire parallel cable then the chip designers would probably have found
    a way to make it work.

    >
    > That's all I know and I'm sticking by it. : )
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > -------------------
    > I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I
    > needed it
    > because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I needed
    >it
    >because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG

    The 18" is just a spec, it doesn't mean longer won't work but there is a risk
    of having data corruption.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >f a new PATA spec came out that required 200 MB/sec over 30 meters
    >on 40-wire parallel cable then the chip designers would probably have found
    >a way to make it work.

    I agree, but then you would still have the wide cable.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    PRIVATE1964 wrote:

    >>f a new PATA spec came out that required 200 MB/sec over 30 meters
    >>on 40-wire parallel cable then the chip designers would probably have
    >>found a way to make it work.
    >
    > I agree, but then you would still have the wide cable.

    And that's the only real benefit of SATA that I can see that is inherent in
    its being serial--that narrow cable is a lot easier to route.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >
    >And that's the only real benefit of SATA that I can see that is inherent in
    >its being serial--that narrow cable is a lot easier to route.

    Here's a question for you that will keep me from having to search on related to
    SATA. I plan on getting a new serial hard drive soon.

    I'm using a NF7-S with serial connections.
    What is the maximum throughput for a hard drive connected to the serial
    connection.

    Is that connection spec'd for 150Mb/sec? I've read that the serial drives that
    are out now are not "true native" serial drives so there is no way they could
    ever hit 150Mb/sec.

    What can you tell me about this please.

    Thanks
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I needed
    >it
    >because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG

    The 18" is just a spec, it doesn't mean longer won't work but there is a risk
    of having data corruption.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---------------------------------
    Apparently a useless spec.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Courseyauto wrote:

    >>I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I
    >>needed it
    >>because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG
    >
    > The 18" is just a spec, it doesn't mean longer won't work but there is a
    > risk of having data corruption.
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > ---------------------------------
    > Apparently a useless spec.

    The spec is what the designers work to. To get reliable operation they put
    in some margin, so you can get away with a slightly longer cable or one
    that is slightly out of spec or whatever, but it's not something you should
    count on.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    PRIVATE1964 wrote:

    >>
    >>And that's the only real benefit of SATA that I can see that is inherent
    >>in its being serial--that narrow cable is a lot easier to route.
    >
    > Here's a question for you that will keep me from having to search on
    > related to SATA. I plan on getting a new serial hard drive soon.
    >
    > I'm using a NF7-S with serial connections.
    > What is the maximum throughput for a hard drive connected to the serial
    > connection.
    >
    > Is that connection spec'd for 150Mb/sec? I've read that the serial drives
    > that are out now are not "true native" serial drives so there is no way
    > they could ever hit 150Mb/sec.
    >
    > What can you tell me about this please.

    There is no drive in the world that can fill a 100 MB/sec pipe. WD Raptors
    have a maximum sustained transfer rate of 72 MB/sec, 7K400s max at 62.1,
    Cheetah X15s max at 86. The limit is the bits per track and the rotational
    speed, not the interface. So it doesn't matter whether the interface can
    hit 150 or 133 or 100.

    With PATA and two drives per channel, it's possible for both drives together
    to fill a 150 MB/sec channel but SATA allows only one per channel so that's
    not an issue.

    In any case, some use a bridge chip, others don't. IIRC Seagate is not
    using a bridge chip. I don't recall what WD is doing, but their Raptors
    outperform any SATA drive from any other manufacturer, although the Hitachi
    7K250 and 7K400 come close, so whether they're using a bridge chip or not
    clearly doesn't make any real-world difference.

    >
    > Thanks

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >Apparently a useless spe

    Not really I guess it depends on how much you value your data though. Because
    It only takes one time to lose everything.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >Apparently a useless spe

    Not really I guess it depends on how much you value your data though. Because
    It only takes one time to lose everything.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------
    Hanv't lost a thing yet in 2 years since i built it,whens it gonna happen?
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Courseyauto wrote:

    >>Apparently a useless spe
    >
    > Not really I guess it depends on how much you value your data though.
    > Because It only takes one time to lose everything.
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > --------------------------------
    > Hanv't lost a thing yet in 2 years since i built it,whens it gonna happen?

    When you can least afford it to of course.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >Hanv't lost a thing yet in 2 years since i built it,whens it gonna happen?

    I honestly don't know, but if it happens a year from now you will lose even
    more data then you have now.

    It only takes once.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:cithok02vi2@news1.newsguy.com...
    > PRIVATE1964 wrote:
    >
    > >>
    > >>And that's the only real benefit of SATA that I can see that is inherent
    > >>in its being serial--that narrow cable is a lot easier to route.
    > >
    > > Here's a question for you that will keep me from having to search on
    > > related to SATA. I plan on getting a new serial hard drive soon.
    > >
    > > I'm using a NF7-S with serial connections.
    > > What is the maximum throughput for a hard drive connected to the serial
    > > connection.
    > >
    > > Is that connection spec'd for 150Mb/sec? I've read that the serial
    drives
    > > that are out now are not "true native" serial drives so there is no way
    > > they could ever hit 150Mb/sec.
    > >
    > > What can you tell me about this please.
    >
    > There is no drive in the world that can fill a 100 MB/sec pipe. WD
    Raptors
    > have a maximum sustained transfer rate of 72 MB/sec, 7K400s max at 62.1,
    > Cheetah X15s max at 86. The limit is the bits per track and the
    rotational
    > speed, not the interface. So it doesn't matter whether the interface can
    > hit 150 or 133 or 100.

    .... apart from the burst speed which with drives with 16MB cache now can be
    a significant factor, especially with video editing applications (where the
    caching algorithms have a better chance because of the big files). 16MB
    bursting at 150MB/s is not insigificant.

    > With PATA and two drives per channel, it's possible for both drives
    together
    > to fill a 150 MB/sec channel but SATA allows only one per channel so
    that's
    > not an issue.
    >
    > In any case, some use a bridge chip, others don't. IIRC Seagate is not
    > using a bridge chip. I don't recall what WD is doing, but their Raptors
    > outperform any SATA drive from any other manufacturer, although the
    Hitachi
    > 7K250 and 7K400 come close, so whether they're using a bridge chip or not
    > clearly doesn't make any real-world difference.

    The Raptors have a bridge chip too. They are basically SCSI drives with an
    adapter chip on them.

    Chip
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Chip wrote:

    >
    > "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:cithok02vi2@news1.newsguy.com...
    >> PRIVATE1964 wrote:
    >>
    >> >>
    >> >>And that's the only real benefit of SATA that I can see that is
    >> >>inherent in its being serial--that narrow cable is a lot easier to
    >> >>route.
    >> >
    >> > Here's a question for you that will keep me from having to search on
    >> > related to SATA. I plan on getting a new serial hard drive soon.
    >> >
    >> > I'm using a NF7-S with serial connections.
    >> > What is the maximum throughput for a hard drive connected to the serial
    >> > connection.
    >> >
    >> > Is that connection spec'd for 150Mb/sec? I've read that the serial
    > drives
    >> > that are out now are not "true native" serial drives so there is no way
    >> > they could ever hit 150Mb/sec.
    >> >
    >> > What can you tell me about this please.
    >>
    >> There is no drive in the world that can fill a 100 MB/sec pipe. WD
    > Raptors
    >> have a maximum sustained transfer rate of 72 MB/sec, 7K400s max at 62.1,
    >> Cheetah X15s max at 86. The limit is the bits per track and the
    > rotational
    >> speed, not the interface. So it doesn't matter whether the interface can
    >> hit 150 or 133 or 100.
    >
    > ... apart from the burst speed which with drives with 16MB cache now can
    > be a significant factor, especially with video editing applications (where
    > the
    > caching algorithms have a better chance because of the big files). 16MB
    > bursting at 150MB/s is not insigificant.

    I fail to see how it makes a difference with video editing, where you are
    trying to stream several gigabytes of data.

    How much real-world difference do you see between a drive with a 16 meg
    cache and an otherwise identical drive with a 2 meg cache?

    >> With PATA and two drives per channel, it's possible for both drives
    > together
    >> to fill a 150 MB/sec channel but SATA allows only one per channel so
    > that's
    >> not an issue.
    >>
    >> In any case, some use a bridge chip, others don't. IIRC Seagate is not
    >> using a bridge chip. I don't recall what WD is doing, but their Raptors
    >> outperform any SATA drive from any other manufacturer, although the
    > Hitachi
    >> 7K250 and 7K400 come close, so whether they're using a bridge chip or not
    >> clearly doesn't make any real-world difference.
    >
    > The Raptors have a bridge chip too. They are basically SCSI drives with
    > an adapter chip on them.

    I see. So you are claiming that they have a SCSI interface bridged to SATA?
    Or are you just saying that being constructed to the same quality standards
    as server-grade drives somehow makes them have a different interface?
    >
    > Chip

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "Courseyauto" <courseyauto@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20040922191133.29600.00001154@mb-m29.aol.com...
    > >I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I
    needed
    > >it
    > >because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG
    >
    > The 18" is just a spec, it doesn't mean longer won't work but there is a
    risk
    > of having data corruption.
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > ---------------------------------
    > Apparently a useless spec.

    Like XP2500's specced to run at 1733 MHz when they will all do 2133? or
    GF6800GT's specced to run at 350MHz when they will all do 375+ or perhaps
    400+ or 425+ or
    Memory that's specced to run 200MHz but will actually do 220MHz

    Come on, a spec is just a spec. The manufacturer has to build in some
    "slack" so that they don't get lots of problems in the field. They want
    some comfort built in, so that their components still perform in less than
    ideal conditions. So if you have better conditions, you can oftern exceed
    the spec.

    That's just the way the world is. Its not a useless spec.

    Chip
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Chip wrote:

    >
    > "Courseyauto" <courseyauto@aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:20040922191133.29600.00001154@mb-m29.aol.com...
    >> >I'm running a hard drive on a 36" round IDE cable with no problems. I
    > needed
    >> >it
    >> >because it's a full tower case so the cable will reach. DOUG
    >>
    >> The 18" is just a spec, it doesn't mean longer won't work but there is a
    > risk
    >> of having data corruption.
    >>
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> ---------------------------------
    >> Apparently a useless spec.
    >
    > Like XP2500's specced to run at 1733 MHz when they will all do 2133? or
    > GF6800GT's specced to run at 350MHz when they will all do 375+ or perhaps
    > 400+ or 425+ or
    > Memory that's specced to run 200MHz but will actually do 220MHz
    >
    > Come on, a spec is just a spec. The manufacturer has to build in some
    > "slack" so that they don't get lots of problems in the field.

    Also to reduce their reject rate at the factory. If they designed the
    XP2500s to run at exactly 1733 MHz they'd end up rejecting half their
    production.

    > They want
    > some comfort built in, so that their components still perform in less than
    > ideal conditions. So if you have better conditions, you can oftern exceed
    > the spec.
    >
    > That's just the way the world is. Its not a useless spec.
    >
    > Chip

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >The spec is what the designers work to. To get reliable operation they put
    >in some margin, so you can get away with a slightly longer cable or one
    >that is slightly out of spec or whatever, but it's not something you should
    >count on.
    >

    Totally agree.

    They design for probably worse case scenario. So he might never have any
    problems or one day he could lose everything.
    Like I posted it all depends on how much you value your personal data like
    family pictures, spread sheets, word documents, porn etc.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >--
    >--John
    >Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    >(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

    Thanks. I realize they could never hit 150Mb sustained, but is it possible for
    150Mb burst with those sata connections on the NF7-S?
    If you have a drive even if in the future that is capable of 150Mbs burst speed
    can the NF7-S connections support that speed?
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >where the
    >caching algorithms have a better chance because of the big files). 16MB
    >bursting at 150MB/s is not insigificant.

    Do the NF7-S sata connections support 150Mb burst speed?
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >When you can least afford it to of course.
    >

    Isn't that always the case.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >where the
    >caching algorithms have a better chance because of the big files). 16MB
    >bursting at 150MB/s is not insigificant.

    <Do the NF7-S sata connections support 150Mb burst speed?

    They are on the PCI buss,so what do you think?
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >
    > They are on the PCI buss,so what do you think?

    I don't know that's why I asked. Maybe you could explain it in some detail.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >
    > They are on the PCI buss,so what do you think?

    I don't know that's why I asked. Maybe you could explain it in some detail.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------------

    In detail it will run at PCI buss speed,and you know what that is.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >In detail it will run at PCI buss speed,and you know what that is.

    I honestly I don't know the maximum bandwith of the PCI bus.

    Do I have to beg to get the answer?
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >In detail it will run at PCI buss speed,and you know what that is.

    I honestly I don't know the maximum bandwith of the PCI bus.

    Do I have to beg to get the answer?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ------------------
    133mbs
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Courseyauto wrote:

    >
    >>In detail it will run at PCI buss speed,and you know what that is.
    >
    > I honestly I don't know the maximum bandwith of the PCI bus.
    >
    > Do I have to beg to get the answer?
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > ------------------
    > 133mbs

    No, 133 MB/sec. MegaBytes, not millibits. While the m isn't
    serious--nobody with a clue would make that mistake, the b vs B is a
    different story--bits vs bytes.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >133mbs

    So then the SATA connections don't even support 150Mb/s. Isn't that a
    requirement of the specs that they support 150Mb/s?
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >No, 133 MB/sec. MegaBytes, not millibits. While the m isn't
    >serious--nobody with a clue would make that mistake, the b vs B is a
    >different story--bits vs bytes.

    Let me see if I have this right.

    The PCI bus can support 133MB/sec, but the SATA supports 150Mb/sec. So there is
    plenty of bandwith on the PCI bus for the SATA connections right?
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    PRIVATE1964 wrote:

    >>No, 133 MB/sec. MegaBytes, not millibits. While the m isn't
    >>serious--nobody with a clue would make that mistake, the b vs B is a
    >>different story--bits vs bytes.
    >
    > Let me see if I have this right.
    >
    > The PCI bus can support 133MB/sec, but the SATA supports 150Mb/sec. So
    > there is plenty of bandwith on the PCI bus for the SATA connections right?

    The PCI bus has a theoretical maximum throughput of 32x33e6 or 1,056,000,000
    bits/sec or 132,000,000 bytes per second. SATA has a theoretical maximum
    throughput of 150,000,000 bytes per second. So to answer you question, no,
    there is not plenty of bandwidth on the PCI bus. For now it's moot since no
    drive provides sustained transfers in excess of 100. Running RAID it's
    quite possible to saturate the PCI bus. That's why PCI-X and PCI Express
    exist and why servers are often made with more than one PCI bus.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  49. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    >The PCI bus has a theoretical maximum throughput of 32x33e6 or 1,056,000,000
    >bits/sec or 132,000,000 bytes per second. SATA has a theoretical maximum
    >throughput of 150,000,000 bytes per second. So to answer you question, no,
    >there is not plenty of bandwidth on the PCI bus. For now it's moot since no
    >drive provides sustained transfers in excess of 100. Running RAID it's
    >quite possible to saturate the PCI bus. That's why PCI-X and PCI Express
    >exist and why servers are often made with more than one PCI bus.
    >

    OK that clears up what I wanted to know very well. Thanks to you and everyone
    else.

    How much does the burst rate matter in the scheme of things? How often does a
    drive hit that burst rate speed?
Ask a new question

Read More

Nvidia Graphics Product